![]() ![]() ![]() Their criticisms show the need for some revision of Toulmin’s position, but his basic concept of warrant, I shall argue, should be retained as a central concept for the evaluation of arguments.America runs on four wheels, and it’s speeding up. 116–152, Newport News, Vale Press 1996) and Freeman (Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure. Irvington, New York, 1984), Johnson (The rise of informal logic, pp. And I respond to criticisms of the concept by van Eemeren et al. ![]() ![]() I argue that those who have adopted Toulmin’s scheme have often distorted the concept of warrant in a way which destroys what is distinctive and worthwhile about it. In this paper I focus on one component of the scheme, the concept of a warrant. Toulmin’s scheme has been widely adopted in the discipline of speech communication, especially in the United. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen Toulmin proposed a new, dialectically grounded structure for the layout of arguments, replacing the old terminology of “premiss” and “conclusion” with a new set of terms: claim, data (later “grounds”), warrant, modal qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Bien que ce soit un pro-jet intéressant, nous pouvons le prendre au sérieux sans être obligés d'adopter la formulation déroutante d'arguments analytiques et substan-tiels. Cette distinction équivaut à une injonction de payer plus atten-tion aux arguments ampliatifs et moins attention aux arguments ex-plicatifs, avec leurs inférences déductives. Puisque ces épreuves sont censées illustrer la façon dont nous pouvons reconnaître les arguments analytiques, la notion de Toulmin d'arguments analytiques et sa distinction entre les arguments analytiques et substantiels n'est pas claire. Ni son "épreuve de tautologie" et ni son "épreuve de vérification" indiquent de façon nette et précise si un argu-ment est analytique ou non. Résumé: La formulation de Toulmin des "arguments analytiques" dans son livre de 1958, The Uses of Ar-gument, est problématique. While this is a worthwhile project, we need not adopt Toulmin's con-fusing formulation of analytic and substantial arguments to take it seri-ously. What Toul-min's distinction amounts to is an injunction to pay more attention to the criteria that make for cogent ar-guments, with their field-dependent inference warrants and backings, and less attention to categorical syllo-gisms, with their deductive entail-ments expressed in ideal language. Since these tests supposedly illustrate how we can recognize ana-lytic arguments, Toulmin's notion of analytic arguments and his distinc-tion between analytic and. Neither Toulmin's "tautology test" nor his "verification test" straightforwardly indicates whether an argument is analytic or not. Toulmin's formulation of "analytic arguments" in his 1958 book, The Uses of Argument, is problematic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |